7 ms·

The department of defense has been using Unity for a long time. As someone who worked at the U.S. Army using Unity, when I was there awhile ago, Unity was used

by relyks 4y ago

The department of defense has been using Unity for a long time. As someone who worked at the U.S. Army using Unity, when I was there awhile ago, Unity was used for developing simulations to train groups of soldiers to use different kinds equipment and to understand battle scenarios. I did work for a trainer that taught people how to use an M777 Howitzer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M777_howitzer). I get the ethical concerns Unity employees have had, but can't any development environment be potentially used for ethically gray purposes? Personally, I didn't see myself as directly sponsoring war, especially since all American taxpayers are contributing towards the defense budget. I saw my work as being part of an ecosystem that could help save soldiers' lives. Soldiers will need to go fight either way for defensive purposes and they need to be trained. If the training process can be more effective and efficient by using game-like simulations, why shouldn't it be? The simulations also end up saving a lot of money, because it's not necessary to waste gas or ammunition taking a tank or a heavy artillery piece out for demonstration use.

balentio 4y ago
meheleventyone 4y ago
Using Unity is different from Unity the company directly working with defense contracts. I can see people taking moral issue with that and not everyone working at Unity is a US citizen and even if you are you don't get a choice in how your taxes are used. Whereas this agreement is voluntary support. From a user perspective it's also at odds with the public image from the history of the company even if it's been a historically good platform for other companies to develop defense simulations and training tools with.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
> I saw my work as being part of an ecosystem that could help save soldiers' lives. Exactly. You worked on a training environment for the M777 howitzer. Better training means less chance that they hit the nearby friendly unit or civilians. If they can deliver accurate fire more quickly under pressure that means less time for the enemy to kill friendlies as well. Better trained soldiers is a win for all parties that are not the enemy.
buran77 4y ago
> Soldiers will need to go fight either way for defensive purposes and they need to be trained "Defensive purposes" is one hell of a creative license. You know it when soldiers "need to go fight" on the other side of the world "for defensive purposes". Or when a random someone enters your home with a gun "for defensive purposes". When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? > can't any development environment be potentially used for ethically gray purposes? Any development can and will probably eventually be used as such. But while Facebook's "gray area" is siphoning and monetizing users' data, the US military's "gray area" is invading countries and killing a whole lot of innocent people in the process. So many that they have to threaten everyone else in the world with deadly action if they even try to look too closely. That's one soft definition of gray. Imagine the NSO Group claiming "software development gray area" to defend themselves. And with any military the moral/ethical objection will go far beyond that because no matter how the rules are followed, the main purpose of a military is to achieve things by threat or application of deadly violence. So a general objection to cooperating with the military complex will always have a solid foundation.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? The right way to think about defending one's country is that it means "defends the interests of the country", which can include helping allies, keeping trade routes stable, etc. Good read: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-military-might-shouldnt-be-underestimated/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-mil...
  - tyen_ 4y ago
    Sure, if you are into the whole imperialism thing.
  - mythrwy 4y ago
    There is no clear limit to that expanded definition though.
    - 4y ago
jvanderbot 4y ago
Maintaining a standing army is just sensible, from a game theoretic perspective. And it (for better or worse) has positive industrial/academic/technological feedback loops -- Unity being paid lots of money being just one example. I would like to live in a peaceful country and world. A peaceful country is one that chooses not to fight. If you cannot fight, you are not peaceful, you are helpless.

by relyks 4y ago

balentio 4y ago

meheleventyone 4y ago

Using Unity is different from Unity the company directly working with defense contracts. I can see people taking moral issue with that and not everyone working at Unity is a US citizen and even if you are you don't get a choice in how your taxes are used. Whereas this agreement is voluntary support. From a user perspective it's also at odds with the public image from the history of the company even if it's been a historically good platform for other companies to develop defense simulations and training tools with.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

> I saw my work as being part of an ecosystem that could help save soldiers' lives. Exactly. You worked on a training environment for the M777 howitzer. Better training means less chance that they hit the nearby friendly unit or civilians. If they can deliver accurate fire more quickly under pressure that means less time for the enemy to kill friendlies as well. Better trained soldiers is a win for all parties that are not the enemy.

buran77 4y ago

> Soldiers will need to go fight either way for defensive purposes and they need to be trained "Defensive purposes" is one hell of a creative license. You know it when soldiers "need to go fight" on the other side of the world "for defensive purposes". Or when a random someone enters your home with a gun "for defensive purposes". When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? > can't any development environment be potentially used for ethically gray purposes? Any development can and will probably eventually be used as such. But while Facebook's "gray area" is siphoning and monetizing users' data, the US military's "gray area" is invading countries and killing a whole lot of innocent people in the process. So many that they have to threaten everyone else in the world with deadly action if they even try to look too closely. That's one soft definition of gray. Imagine the NSO Group claiming "software development gray area" to defend themselves. And with any military the moral/ethical objection will go far beyond that because no matter how the rules are followed, the main purpose of a military is to achieve things by threat or application of deadly violence. So a general objection to cooperating with the military complex will always have a solid foundation.

andsoitis 4y ago
> When was the last time a US soldier was called to arms to defend their own country? The right way to think about defending one's country is that it means "defends the interests of the country", which can include helping allies, keeping trade routes stable, etc. Good read: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-military-might-shouldnt-be-underestimated/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-importance-of-u-s-mil...
- tyen_ 4y ago
  Sure, if you are into the whole imperialism thing.
- mythrwy 4y ago
  There is no clear limit to that expanded definition though.
  - 4y ago

jvanderbot 4y ago

Maintaining a standing army is just sensible, from a game theoretic perspective. And it (for better or worse) has positive industrial/academic/technological feedback loops -- Unity being paid lots of money being just one example. I would like to live in a peaceful country and world. A peaceful country is one that chooses not to fight. If you cannot fight, you are not peaceful, you are helpless.